I think there is a decent chance this rule will get reviewed. On the one hand, I agree that it should be applied uniformly, but I hate to see it affect the outcome of a playoff series, especially since Horry started it. For all we know, the guy started isht on purpose. Trying to look at both sides of the argument and I think the rule should be reviewed. They'll probably come up with something totall cryptic like, "Player must move at least five feet from where he is sitting on the bench and have hands above the waist."

Click to expand...

That's why I maintain the view that had PHX not tried to run out and retaliate, the Spurs would have been the only team hurt as Horry would be out for 2 games.

That's why I maintain the view that had PHX not tried to run out and retaliate, the Spurs would have been the only team hurt as Horry would be out for 2 games.

Click to expand...

Well Low that's true. So what? If you call what Diaw and Stoudemire did "retaliation" I don't know what to say. It's exactly why the rule must be reviewed and clarified carefully. The wrong team got penalized more harshly. When the letter of the law results in injustice and can be manipulated so easily, it's time to give it another look. Yes, Diaw and Stoudemire left the bench and ran up the sideline onto the court. But did they run with "intent to fight or harm"? We don't know. The coaches stopped them. But do we know for sure that they would have started a fist fight or can we say that they might have practiced some self-containment and nothing further would have happened? We don't know.

Well Low that's true. So what? If you call what Diaw and Stoudemire did "retaliation" I don't know what to say. It's exactly why the rule must be reviewed and clarified carefully. The wrong team got penalized more harshly. When the letter of the law results in injustice and can be manipulated so easily, it's time to give it another look. Yes, Diaw and Stoudemire left the bench and ran up the sideline onto the court. But did they run with "intent to fight or harm"? We don't know. The coaches stopped them. But do we know for sure that they would have started a fist fight or can we say that they might have practiced some self-containment and nothing further would have happened? We don't know.

"It's a bad rule and I hope they change it." Charles Barkley

Click to expand...

IRREGARDLESS of what the rule is supposed to prevent. The rule is written to keep additional "POTENTIAL instigators" off the court. Whether or not Stoudamire and Diaw where pulled away before they could get involved is immaterial. They ran out there with the intent of joining the fracas. Which is precisely why the rule was crafted so that you would have to stay your ass in the immediate vicinity of the bench. You are allowed to stand up, yell, curse, even take a step forward. But when you break out into a sprint to get involved (deterred or not) you have broken the rule and they were correctly penalized.

Eveyone involved KNEW going into this that you have to stay near the bench. Stay near the bench. STAY NEAR THE BENCH. If you can't maintain your thoughts beyond reacting like wild animal and going all Incredible Hulk on the opponent after a hard foul, you should be suspended...you deserve it.

That's why I maintain the view that had PHX not tried to run out and retaliate, the Spurs would have been the only team hurt as Horry would be out for 2 games.

Click to expand...

There was no retaliation. I think Horry got 2 games ONLY because Stern wanted to handicap the Suns for 1. If the league didn't suspend Stoudemire & Diaw for a game, Horry would have only been out last night and not tomorrow night too.

Mind you, I WANNA see a Pistons/Spurs rematch but the league call was crap. The rule needs review.

In a freakin decade, PHX is the only team crying like babies over this. I'm sure the Knicks and Heat of '97 have much more of an axe to grind over this kind of thing, but nevertheless, no one bothered to take issue with this over the last 10 years until PHX figures they're players shouldn't be held to the same standard as everyone else.

Why? Are they mentally challenged? Deficient? Feral?

Dozens of teams, since this rule has been instated, have suffered lost players for not staying on the bench. They've all served their suspensions without becoming crybabies. But, now PHX thinks they should get a pass because Horry struck first. What's next, should they be allowed to get in one punch before they start disciplining PHX as well? An altercation starts because one guy does something 1st. That's why it elevates to an altercation. That doesn't mean you get a free pass to make the situation worse because, "well, what was I supposed to do?" For all the times people want to point at how much these guys get paid, this is one of them. They are not boxers, they are basketball players and they get paid to ball, not fight.

As much as I love to see hard fouls, there still is no excuse for turning the game into an all out brawl or giving guys free passes to make a bad situation worse by allowing for "alleged" retaliation. Just ask Rudy T. You can't wait until a guy has his face broken to start counting who gets suspended.

There was no retaliation. I think Horry got 2 games ONLY because Stern wanted to handicap the Suns for 1. If the league didn't suspend Stoudemire & Diaw for a game, Horry would have only been out last night and not tomorrow night too.

Mind you, I WANNA see a Pistons/Spurs rematch but the league call was crap. The rule needs review.

Click to expand...

Untrue, the league stated that Horry got two games. One for hitting Nash and one for hitting Bell above the neck with an elbow.

Horry would have only gotten one game because it was no worse than Posey's hit on Hinrich last year, for which he was only given one game. The 2nd came from hitting Bell.

So, if Amare and Diaw stay near the bench, No Suns get punished and Horry is out a game. Plain and simple.

There was no retaliation. I think Horry got 2 games ONLY because Stern wanted to handicap the Suns for 1. If the league didn't suspend Stoudemire & Diaw for a game, Horry would have only been out last night and not tomorrow night too.

Mind you, I WANNA see a Pistons/Spurs rematch but the league call was crap. The rule needs review.

Click to expand...

...and note I said,

"tried to run out and retaliate"

Click to expand...

...not actually retaliate. The rule doesn't say you have to successfully reach the altercation and sock someone in the jaw. It says "immediate vicinity of the bench."

There is no room for debate on this, the league in this particular instance has been consistent for over 10 years. For the life of me, I can't figure out why you guys still feel the need to complain.

In a freakin decade, PHX is the only team crying like babies over this. I'm sure the Knicks and Heat of '97 have much more of an axe to grind over this kind of thing, but nevertheless, no one bothered to take issue with this over the last 10 years until PHX figures they're players shouldn't be held to the same standard as everyone else.

Why? Are they mentally challenged? Deficient? Feral?

Dozens of teams, since this rule has been instated, have suffered lost players for not staying on the bench. They've all served their suspensions without becoming crybabies. But, now PHX thinks they should get a pass because Horry struck first. What's next, should they be allowed to get in one punch before they start disciplining PHX as well? An altercation starts because one guy does something 1st. That's why it elevates to an altercation. That doesn't mean you get a free pass to make the situation worse because, "well, what was I supposed to do?" For all the times people want to point at how much these guys get paid, this is one of them. They are not boxers, they are basketball players and they get paid to ball, not fight.

As much as I love to see hard fouls, there still is no excuse for turning the game into an all out brawl or giving guys free passes to make a bad situation worse by allowing for "alleged" retaliation. Just ask Rudy T. You can't wait until a guy has his face broken to start counting who gets suspended.

Click to expand...

Wow, this is eery, I've never agreed with Low this much before. It's almost like he is making my posts for me now.

... STAY NEAR THE BENCH. If you can't maintain your thoughts beyond reacting like wild animal and going all Incredible Hulk on the opponent after a hard foul, you should be suspended...you deserve it.

Click to expand...

And if you ARE going to get suspended, try to make it count.

Hate to say that I agree with Jack (sorry buddy), but I think he's right. If you are going to complain about dirty play and rule violations, you have to accept the penalties when you violate the rules. (just make it count next time!)

Maybe the Suns will learn from this experience and pick up an enforcer during the offseason. Those guys could really use six hard fouls.

The rule needs review. Not everyone in the NBA is Carmelo or RonRon or Jackson. The tape should be reviewed to determine 'intent' before blindly giving a team an edge in the playoffs. The situation reminds me of divorce court.

The rule needs review. Not everyone in the NBA is Carmelo or RonRon or Jackson. The tape should be reviewed to determine 'intent' before blindly giving a team an edge in the playoffs. The situation reminds me of divorce court.

The rule needs review. Not everyone in the NBA is Carmelo or RonRon or Jackson. The tape should be reviewed to determine 'intent' before blindly giving a team an edge in the playoffs. The situation reminds me of divorce court.

Click to expand...

At who's discretion?

You want to give the COMMISH or league more power to play favorites?

What is wrong with ADULT MEN UNDERSTANDING AND PLAYING BY THE RULES?

I don't think anyone can determine what goes on in ANYONE'S HEAD, let alone say they know the "intent" of said individual.

It's a black and white rule. It's absolute. The only problem with it is that some of the league's players must not understand how to read and obey it.

I'm totally with Low and Jack here. If the rule had been bent in this case, wouldn't everyone be yelling about how Phoenix was being favored, the fix was in to get the sexy team into the finals, the game is rigged to favor the stars, etc.? If Jalen or some other scrub had been the one coming off the bench, obviously no one would be complaining about the rule being enforced in the same way it's been enforced for the past decade. OK, so maybe the rule itself should be changed in some way, that's a legitimate argument. But the Suns have no leg to stand on at all here.

If you can't maintain your thoughts beyond reacting like wild animal and going all Incredible Hulk on the opponent after a hard foul, you should be suspended...you deserve it.

Click to expand...

Low this is just a point of fact. I'm no longer interesting in arguing about the rule. But if you can find Stoudemire or Diaw "going all Incredible Hulk on the opponent" in your game tape, your powers of imagination are indeed...powerful.

As far as the rule goes, upon further review of my own, the consensus seems to be that the rule is just fine and it's black-and-white quality is actually what makes it easy for the players to understand and also easy to enforce. I figure the guys actually playing are the ones most impacted and they seem to be okay with it.

I hope Phoenix doesn't get eliminated tomorrow. I hope they get a Game 7 to battle it out.

Low this is just a point of fact. I'm no longer interesting in arguing about the rule. But if you can find Stoudemire or Diaw "going all Incredible Hulk on the opponent" in your game tape, your powers of imagination are indeed...powerful.

As far as the rule goes, upon further review of my own, the consensus seems to be that the rule is just fine and it's black-and-white quality is actually what makes it easy for the players to understand and also easy to enforce. I figure the guys actually playing are the ones most impacted and they seem to be okay with it.

I hope Phoenix doesn't get eliminated tomorrow. I hope they get a Game 7 to battle it out.

Click to expand...

The point I was making was not that Stoudamire specifically went ballistic, but if a rule is black and white, then there is no need to all of a sudden decide we need to make exceptions for players to get to initially react (i.e. run to the altercation) and then "reconsider" and go back. The intention is to stop you from running out there in the first place and not just "hoping" that guys come to their senses before they get involved.